Next Article in Journal
Nanobiotechnology and Immunotherapy: Two Powerful and Cooperative Allies against Cancer
Next Article in Special Issue
The Fatty Acid and Protein Profiles of Circulating CD81-Positive Small Extracellular Vesicles Are Associated with Disease Stage in Melanoma Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Targeting Cancer Metabolism Breaks Radioresistance by Impairing the Stress Response
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comment on Hopkins et al. Value of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Initiating First-Line Atezolizumab Combination Therapy: Subgroup Analysis of the IMPOWER150 Trial. Cancers 2021, 13, 1176
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 13
Issue 15
10.3390/cancers13153763
Review Report
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Reply
Peer-Review Record

Reply to Auclin et al. Comment on “Hopkins et al. Value of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Initiating First-Line Atezolizumab Combination Therapy: Subgroup Analysis of the IMPOWER150 Trial. Cancers 2021, 13, 1176”

Cancers 2021, 13(15), 3763; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13153763
by Ashley M. Hopkins 1,*, Ganessan Kichenadasse 1,2, Ahmad Y. Abuhelwa 1, Ross A. McKinnon 1, Andrew Rowland 1 and Michael J. Sorich 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Cancers 2021, 13(15), 3763; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13153763
Submission received: 11 June 2021 / Revised: 8 July 2021 / Accepted: 22 July 2021 / Published: 27 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cancer-Mediated Immunomodulation—Pathogenetic, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Aspects)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a reply to a recent letter regarding the published article entitled 'The clinical potential of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index for immunotherapy'.

It iteratively addresses the discussion points raised in the letter from Auclin and colleagues, also presenting requested data for LIPI survival estimates using the BCP regimen.

Two sentences need to be rephrased, otherwise this is suitable to publish as part of an ongoing and important discussion for this convenient immunotherapy biomarker:

  1. "Such data presents LIPI is not immunotherapy specific, and that limiting immunotherapy access in clinical trials is pre-empt" Do the authors mean 'premature'?
  2. Final sentence, "Beckoning further investigation of the clinical potential of immunotherapy prediction models to support shared decision making, provide realistic expectations to treatment, and inform regulators of cost-effectiveness across subgroups." It feels like this sentence is incomplete - rephrase.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their comments and appreciate that they found the reply letter to be informative. We have updated the sentences to which reviewer referred to, as they were poorly written.

Changes:

As suggested the manuscript has been updated to include:

‘Such data presents LIPI is not immunotherapy specific, and that limiting immunotherapy access in clinical trials is premature.’

 

The final sentence of the manuscript has been updated to:

‘This highlights the importance of future investigations of the clinical potential of immunotherapy prediction models to support shared decision making, provide realistic expectations to treatment, and inform regulators of cost-effectiveness across subgroups (i.e., small enhancements in prediction performance compared to LIPI have significant potential for major clinical impacts).’

Back to TopTop